Video conferencing with Television

[ravi]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Hi,
For my masters project I am supposed to implement a Video Conferencing
facility with H.323. I have decided to do it on a PC board using the
intel 810 STB reference architecture running on a linux kernel. Is
there an alternative and what could be the major issue when it comes
to implementing a video chat for a Television. Also is there a place
where I can get the source for H.264 codec. I am sorry for being
vague, but I wanted to keep the desc. short.
Also is there a support for any webcam with 4 CIF resolution (708 X
570) in Linux.
Thanks and regards,
Ravi.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

FU's set to comp.dcom.videoconf

"Ravi" <invertr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ed7b2ef.0406231038.7dc8bf52@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> For my masters project I am supposed to implement a Video Conferencing
> facility with H.323. I have decided to do it on a PC board using the
> intel 810 STB reference architecture running on a linux kernel. Is
> there an alternative and what could be the major issue when it comes
> to implementing a video chat for a Television. Also is there a place
> where I can get the source for H.264 codec.

Source for a H.264 codec ? I doubt it, its too new and probably full of
licensing implications. But you could take a look at openh323.org and
packetizer.com to check.

> I am sorry for being
> vague, but I wanted to keep the desc. short.
> Also is there a support for any webcam with 4 CIF resolution (708 X
> 570) in Linux.

I don't know but i would guess the answer is no. I have not seen any free
webcam s/w that can do that high a resolution, i believe the higher ones do
FCIF.

> Thanks and regards,
> Ravi.

-=-peas-=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

Ravi,

> "Ravi" <invertr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4ed7b2ef.0406231038.7dc8bf52@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> > For my masters project I am supposed to implement a Video Conferencing
> > facility with H.323. I have decided to do it on a PC board using the
> > intel 810 STB reference architecture running on a linux kernel. Is
> > there an alternative and what could be the major issue when it comes
> > to implementing a video chat for a Television. Also is there a place
> > where I can get the source for H.264 codec.
>
> Source for a H.264 codec ? I doubt it, its too new and probably full of
> licensing implications. But you could take a look at openh323.org and
> packetizer.com to check.

I'm not sure where you can get implementations (yet), but I know they exist.
The licensing terms have also been squared away:
http://www.dailypayload.com/cgi-bin/news?l=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tcGVnbGEuY29tL25ld3Mvbl8wNC0wNS0xOF9hdmMucGRm

Paul

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote in message
news:akjVc.179436$wH4.11845288@twister.southeast.rr.com...

> > Source for a H.264 codec ? I doubt it, its too new and probably full of
> > licensing implications. But you could take a look at openh323.org and
> > packetizer.com to check.
>
> I'm not sure where you can get implementations (yet), but I know they
exist.
> The licensing terms have also been squared away:
>
http://www.dailypayload.com/cgi-bin/news?l=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tcGVnbGEuY29tL25ld3Mvbl8wNC0wNS0xOF9hdmMucGRm

Maybe i mis-read the press release but i dn't see how Video Conferencing has
been excepted from the Royalty fees. As far as i can see all it is talking
about is broadcasting (streaming) not two/n-way video conferencing. The
reason i make this clarification is that the poster was asking about Webcam
s/w which is typically free and therefore can afford royalties.

I'd personally be v.disappointed if MPEG had allowed a protocol with their
name on it to go out the door with such restrictions in place.

> Paul

-=-peas-=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

Peas,

That was just a pointer to the press release. Here are the licensing terms:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

You can see that videoconferencing is covered. The H.264 licensing site is:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/index.cfm

Paul


"-=-peas-=-" <reply-to-newsgroup@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:cg588a$hs0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote in message
> news:akjVc.179436$wH4.11845288@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> > > Source for a H.264 codec ? I doubt it, its too new and probably full
of
> > > licensing implications. But you could take a look at openh323.org and
> > > packetizer.com to check.
> >
> > I'm not sure where you can get implementations (yet), but I know they
> exist.
> > The licensing terms have also been squared away:
> >
>
http://www.dailypayload.com/cgi-bin/news?l=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tcGVnbGEuY29tL25ld3Mvbl8wNC0wNS0xOF9hdmMucGRm
>
> Maybe i mis-read the press release but i dn't see how Video Conferencing
has
> been excepted from the Royalty fees. As far as i can see all it is talking
> about is broadcasting (streaming) not two/n-way video conferencing. The
> reason i make this clarification is that the poster was asking about
Webcam
> s/w which is typically free and therefore can afford royalties.
>
> I'd personally be v.disappointed if MPEG had allowed a protocol with their
> name on it to go out the door with such restrictions in place.
>
> > Paul
>
> -=-peas-=-
>
>